Objectives: Goal setting and motivational interviewing (MI) may increase well-being by promoting healthy behavior. Since we failed to show improved well-being in a proactive assessment service for community-dwelling older adults applying these techniques, we studied whether implementation processes could explain this. Methods: Goals set during the comprehensive geriatric assessment were evaluated on their potential for behavior change. MI and goal setting adherence wasassessed by reviewing audiotaped interactions and interviewing care professionals. Results: Among the 280 goals set with 230 frail older adults (mean age 77 ± 6.9 years, 59% women), more than 90% had a low potential for behavior change. Quality thresholds for MI were reached in only one of the 11 interactions. Application was hindered by the context and the limited proficiency of care professionals. Discussion: Implementation was suboptimal for goal setting and MI. This decreased the potential for improved well-being in the participating older adults.
MULTIFILE
Het ontwerp van een onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van twee interventiemethodes (U-PRIM en U-CARE) voor een proactieve zorg voor kwetsbare ouderen. Uitdagingen en methodologische kwesties worden uitgelicht.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a proactive primary care program on the daily functioning of older people in primary care. DESIGN: Single-blind, three-arm, cluster-randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. SETTING: Primary care setting, 39 general practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling people aged 60 and older (N = 3,092). INTERVENTIONS: A frailty screening intervention using routine electronic medical record data to identify older people at risk of adverse events followed by usual care from a general practitioner; after the screening intervention, a nurse-led care program consisting of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, evidence-based care planning, care coordination, and follow-up; usual care. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was daily functioning measured using the Katz-15 (6 activities of daily living (ADLs), 8 instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), one mobility item (range 0–15)); higher scores indicat greater dependence. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, primary care consultations, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, nursing home admissions, and mortality. RESULTS: The participants in both intervention arms had less decline in daily functioning than those in the usual care arm at 12 months (mean Katz-15 score: screening arm, 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.77–1.97; screening and nurse-led care arm, 1.88, 95% CI = 1.80–1.96; control group, 2.03, 95% CI = 1.9 –2.13; P = .03). No differences in quality of life were observed. CONCLUSION: Participants in both intervention groups had less decline than those in the control group at 1-year follow-up. Despite the statistically significant effect, the clinical relevance is uncertain at this point because of the small differences. Greater customizing of the intervention combined with prolonged follow-up may lead to more robust results.
